This program could eliminate poverty resulting in a more predictable and stable society as crime and violence would decay.

It could also move innovation beyond traditional employment as everyone would have access to the necessities of life by a basic income thus economic flexibility.

It could, in addition to deliberate automation, diminish the work hours for full-time employers, giving people more time to friends and family and activities that enrich their lives thus increasing quality of life.

It would in fact save significant costs by liquidating cumbersome and bureaucratic government agencies, to a much simpler program that could be automated.

Furthermore, since there is no means test; the richest as well as the poorest citizens would receive it which could manifest a positive psychological effect in people to spend less and appreciate leisure, which is ultimately good for the environment.

An example of a 'mini-basic income' is the Permanent Fund Dividend which in an annual individual payout to Alaskans. Though the payout is relatively small and only annually distributed, it still goes to show that this kind of program is being used today: http://pfd.alaska.gov

Research from Namibia revealed that the introduction of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) led to an increase in economic activity which contradicts critics' claims that the BIG will lead to laziness and dependency. Learn more about it here: http://bignam.org

Namibia had amazing results in a number of other things as well, namely poverty reduction, which is a pivotal point in and of itself, and a reduction in crime rate by 40%. Now, imagine what a global basic income guarantee could do.

Oct 20 2012:
Too many people here are shooting down the basic income idea because it's not perfect. I feel that we should not require it to be perfect, just less worse than the current system.

In other words, we have to weigh a small minority of the population abusing a basic income by never working (although a social draft could partially solve this problem) against an undeserving financial elite usurping much of society's resources and taking irresponsible risks with other people's resources, veterans eating out of dumpsters and people who work 40 hours per week not being able to afford health care and education for their kids.

Oct 20 2012:
It's a draft where you have to spend some time of your life serving society. Like the traditional draft you can do this in the military, but you can also work in a nursing home or waste disposal, even administrative positions if you've got the skills, in fact there's no reason you can't serve it working as a brain surgeon. The only restrictions are that it can't be in the private sector, that you have to perform it before you reach a certain age and that you only get a basic living income for the duration of your service. The social draft may not even prove necessary, but if it does its duration can be set based on the needs of society.

@John Moonstroller

Since it would be mandatory for everyone, before a certain age, I do not think it would be necessary to use voting rights as an incentive. I don't think the social draft will contribute more to society if everyone completed their service at an early age to get voting rights. The mandatory nature of the draft ensures that everyone will serve eventually, so you can provide voting rights to people who have not served yet and choose to pursue an education first.

Oct 20 2012:
It's a good idea John. I would expand it to: you don't have a right to vote unless you did your tour of duty and became a full Citizen. By full Citizen, I mean everyone has the full rights afforded by the constitution but to vote in any election, you must have that service to community validation.

Oct 23 2012:
I feel that this issue could be solved by how we raise and teach our children. Parents should be trained to be more careful and aware of how their values and values in general might influence their children and schools should be more about collaboration and sharing. I think a combination of these things would make our children apt to voluntarily want to participate in society and their environment.

The children will eventually realize that the only way a society can take care of them is if they care of the society thus participating in it.

Oct 17 2012:
Strongly disagree. This attitude fosters the sense of entitlement and kills the sense of gratitude and the desire to do good things to others in return for the good things they do to us.

Nobody owes us a living (including God). When charity comes from heart, and not from government mandate, it is much more abundant. Forced redistribution of wealth is just legalized robbery. It fills the "givers" with bitterness and resentment and deprives "recipients" of gratitude. When we feel that society "owes" to us, we are never satisfied, no matter how much we receive.

We are not entitled to "happiness", but to "pursuit of happiness".

I believe, such program will have just the opposite effect on society than what you describe. As another utopic idea, I would advocate abandoning all mandatory entitlement programs altogether and handing them off to charities. Private individuals are far better and more efficient in taking care of each other than the government.

Oct 17 2012:
Sadly, I can only say the same thing back to you and find your worldview quite dystopian in fact. Tell me. Why aren't we entitled to happiness? Why shouldn't everybody have the same access to goods and services for a good life? Why should only a few selected ones have the fruits of life and others not? Is the current economic system really the only thing worth striving for? Is this all we can do? Let's keep having poverty, war and human suffering in the sake of pursuing happiness at the expense of others? I find that utterly disgusting and not acceptable.

By the way, do you have ANY statistics that shows 'private individuals are far better and more efficient in taking care of each other than the government'?

We are. We need to realize it, stretch our hand and take it. Happiness cannot be "given" or "mandated". It's an internal state, mostly, independent of material conditions of our existence. It's like faith. You either have it or not. No amount of material evidence will suffice. It's a Zen concept. Read about the "National Grouch Day". http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/National_Grouch_Day It's a joke, but each joke has a share of truth.

Re: "Why shouldn't everybody have the same access to goods and services for a good life?"

They do. They just have to stretch their hand. "Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find." If one sits there and feels like a victim, while others are pursuing their happiness, who is to blame? I don't say that disabled people have to go and earn the living. We must help each other. But it must come from the heart. Mandated charity does no good. People often do not realize their own potential and refuse to act simply because they do not believe in their own abilities and consider other people greedy, evil, etc. I do not like to blame "the 1%" for exploiting "the 99%". This division of people into "good" and "bad" buckets only causes strife. Of course, immoral and unfair practices must be punished, but most billionaires did not steal their wealth and give a lot to charity.

Who and how will determine what "basic income" means? Is having a vacation in Hawaii a basic necessity? Some think, it is...

As for the efficiency of the private sector in helping people in emergency vs. FEMA, here are a few links. I don't think, reliable statistics on private help can be found.

Oct 18 2012:
So, what you're essentially saying is that you would rather risk your life pursuing happiness instead of creating a safe and stable environment that is both predictable and at your best interest?

Look. Basic Income Guarantee is more than just being humane and giving a hand. This program would essentially eliminate poverty thus most human suffering. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, it is about decreasing crime and violence, which is the number one by-product of poverty, thus destruction. Second of all, it is about increasing quality of life for everyone, by granting anybody, who are willing and capable, access to participate in society and their environment. This is a far better and efficient way to do it, than restricting people's participation to their purchasing power.

Oct 18 2012:
Mats, this has been done before. Read about the history of the Soviet Union and other communist countries. Same basic ideas. You propose to create a wealth redistribution system - "rob the rich, give money to the poor" - Robin Hood style or "Expropriate the expropriators" - Lenin stylehttp://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Expropriation+of+the+Expropriators
Another entitlement program - search internet on the problems of the Social Security system in the U.S. and entitlement programs in Europe. Or the history of French Revolution.

These systems go bankrupt and corrupt within less than 100 years. I share your enthusiasm for ending the poverty and suffering, but let's check the reality. How is your proposal different from the Soviet system? Who will pay the bill to guarantee this "basic income"? Unless most of the people VOLUNTEER to do that, laws, taxes, and government mandates won't work.

Oct 18 2012:
"Mats, this has been done before. Read about the history of the Soviet Union and other communist countries."

The reason why communism failed was because it wasn't implemented globally and constant pressures from the free-market capitalist countries made it difficult for these systems to take root and give people from the outside world any chance to see the system in effect - coupled with the obvious propaganda the free-market capitalist countries had taken into effect to ensure that people would stay ignorant to such systems.

"How is your proposal different from the Soviet system?"

Again, a Basic Income Guarantee becoming a human right would be implemented globally and not nationally.

"These systems go bankrupt and corrupt within less than 100 years."

That is assuming that we will have and want a monetary system forever. With technological advances the need for monetary exchange is being more and more irrelevant. This is because of the abundance technology creates. Read the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy" by Jacque Fresco to see how we can live without money.

"Who will pay the bill to guarantee this "basic income"? Unless most of the people VOLUNTEER to do that, laws, taxes, and government mandates won't work."

Hopefully, people will see the necessity and benefits by implementing such a program.

Oct 18 2012:
Mats, the Soviet system collapsed not because of the pressure from the free market states, but because people were alienated from the means of production and the fruits of their labor. The system created a huge apathy, lack of motivation and lack of personal responsibility. All property was considered "communal" i.e., nobody's in particular and was up for grabs for anyone who had access to it. Government positions responsible for distribution of the goods were coveted and held by corrupt cronies of other corrupt officials. Do you think, North Korea and Cuba are in economic dumpster because of the pressure of the free market? Read about conditions in China before they implemented the reforms. Corruption and work conditions are still a problem there.

People's mentality needs to change globally and naturally, without force. Love for the neighbor cannot be forced.

I can take a look at the book you quote. However, I do not think the world is ready to abandon money. Perhaps, it will some time, but it must happen naturally. Mandating such changes through legal system has never worked.

Nov 3 2012:
"Mats, the Soviet system collapsed not because of the pressure from the free market states, but because people were alienated from the means of production and the fruits of their labor. The system created a huge apathy, lack of motivation and lack of personal responsibility."

How was people alienated from the means of production and the fruits of their labor? Could you elaborate on this? I thought communism was all about the working people. And why do you think this creates a huge apathy, lack of motivation and lack of personal responsibility?

"Do you think, North Korea and Cuba are in economic dumpster because of the pressure of the free market?"

You do realize that Cuba has a total embargo from importing anything from Unites States, right? Now, if that isn't a direct pressure from a free market state, I don't know what is.

"People's mentality needs to change globally and naturally, without force. Love for the neighbor cannot be forced."

I wholeheartedly agree, and this is why people has to be educated about the benefits of a Basic Income Guarantee that would serve society as a whole and ultimately themselves.

Nov 4 2012:
Re: "How was people alienated from the means of production and the fruits of their labor? Could you elaborate on this? I thought communism was all about the working people. And why do you think this creates a huge apathy, lack of motivation and lack of personal responsibility?"

Mats, in the Soviet Union, private property of farmland or means of industrial production was illegal. All means of production belonged to the state. The idea was that such ownership would inevitably create exploitation. The food produced in collective farms and products produced in the factories also belonged to the state and were distributed administratively. The idea of central distribution and planned economy was to avoid ups and downs of capitalist economy. Private enterpreneurship was also illegal and officially frowned upon as desire to enrich oneself at the expense of others. Most people made living being employees of the state. No matter how hard one worked, the salary remained the same. Productivity was rewarded by celebrating high producers in the newspapers or company meetings. In a sense, the system was about working people. A factory worker sometimes had larger salary than a university professor, a doctor, or an engineer. Is it just? Administrative positions responsible for distribution were coveted and corruption was (and still is) rampant. I don't "think" that the system creates apathy and lack of responsibility. I saw it. I grew up in Soviet Ukraine.

Nov 4 2012:
First of all, thank you for clearing that up. However, comparing Basic Income to communism is not fair, because a Basic Income doesn't work in any shape or form like the Soviet did. A Basic Income would merely be a policy or human right in this case, that would be agreed upon through a global referendum or what have you, that says that all humans are entitled to an unconditional income for their necessities of life. Unlike communism, a Basic Income would move innovation and work in general beyond traditional employment (both private and state) making it far more decentralized, but at the same time ideal for sharing ideas and collaborating. It would also liberate people to pursue the things that really matters to them or what the free market capitalists talks about, the pursuit of happiness. If that isn't economic freedom, I don't know what is. It would also open the door for more automation of boring, repetitious and dangerous jobs and labor, both private and state, because work and labor is now being redefined as a result of a Basic Income. Who wouldn't want that? It is also unsustainable for the environment to have a 100% work force and a Basic Income would, like I said, move work beyond traditional employment easing the stress on the environment.

Nov 5 2012:
Re: "However, comparing Basic Income to communism is not fair, because a Basic Income doesn't work in any shape or form like the Soviet did." -- I must be missing something. Aren't you proposing a system of administrative redistribution of wealth?

Re: "A Basic Income would merely be a policy or human right in this case,..." -- First, "basic income" is a fuzzy concept. Does it include an annual family vacation? (I already asked this question) Second, we may declare that every human has a right to live in a palace. Unless we provide funds to guarantee this right, such declaration would be irresponsible. Third, such declaration would foster irresponsibility, because everyone will demand a palace regardless of their contribution.

Re: "... that would be agreed upon through a global referendum or what have you, that says that all humans are entitled to an unconditional income for their necessities of life." -- Have you read this book? http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf. When you propose a measure that would benefit 95% of the people at the expense of the other 5%, I have little doubt that it will pass. The remaining 5% will then be exterminated physically or financially or will hide their assets, and the system will go bankrupt. You propose to create a huge public liability, worse than those that drag down European economy right now.

Nov 5 2012:
"I must be missing something. Aren't you proposing a system of administrative redistribution of wealth?"

Yes, but Soviet never really did that, did they? Sure, they nationalized most of the means of production, but how much of that can you really expect go back to the citizens if there is no system that regulates the surplus of exports? Of course there will be corruption in such environments with little to no regulation. In this sense, communism is equally as bad as free market. Furthermore, I am against forcing anybody into labor they don't wish to partake, I am pointing out the fact that a Basic Income would LIBERATE people from traditional notions of work. A Basic Income would _guarantee_ that people got their share of their cake. Be it by financing it through publicly owned energy production or taxation reforms.

Look this is more than just economics, its about principles. It should be a human right to have free access to necessities of life regardless of your situation. Something less is a thing of the past. We have the technology to liberate people to do things that really matter and to also enjoy leisure and spark innovation to new heights. It should be considered a privilege to partake in society in the quest to improve yourself and the rest of humanity, not self-interest on the expense of others.

Basic Income is neither fuzzy or hard to understand, its only the lack of information or the lack of willingness to learn new concepts that hinders you from realizing the benefits. Partly because of your seemingly indoctrination in age old economics of the past that serves no relevance to our surroundings and partly because of the emotional attachment you have to these same ideas. Therefore it is almost impossible for me to persuade you or make you realize the benefits in these small spaces on TED if you don't do any research yourself. So I urge to read more about it, before making anymore claims or assumptions about it.

Nov 5 2012:
"When you propose a measure that would benefit 95% of the people at the expense of the other 5%, I have little doubt that it will pass. The remaining 5% will then be exterminated physically or financially or will hide their assets, and the system will go bankrupt. You propose to create a huge public liability, worse than those that drag down European economy right now."

Did you really say at the _expense_ of the other 5% and justified it? Holy shit. If 95% of the population benefited from it it should be celebrated, not looked upon as a threat to the remaining 5%.

Nov 5 2012:
Re: "It would also liberate people to pursue the things that really matters to them or what the free market capitalists talks about, the pursuit of happiness."

Once people get a taste of comfortable living without work, they get addicted. You would think, they will use the opportunity for education and personal devevlopment. I doubt. Why bother? I know a person who has 4 children. His small salary allowed him to qualify for a government program that paid his rent. When he received a job offer with a double salary, he rejected it, because he would lose his benefits. I know children from well-to-do educated families who quit colleges for low-income jobs and drinking with buddies. I know quite a few young people who miss opportunities they have because they lack motivation or self-esteem. Read how people use their lottery winnings.http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/stocks/why-lottery-winners-go-bankrupt-1301002181742/

Re: "It would also open the door for more automation of boring, repetitious and dangerous jobs and labor, both private and state, because work and labor is now being redefined as a result of a Basic Income."

There is a reverse side of the medal. Automation removes low-skilled labor from the market and raises the education requirements for entry-level jobs, thus creating fewer opportunities for young people.

Mats, the idea may sound great, but, in my opinion, it fails basic reality checks. I believe, feeling of entitlement CREATES poverty. People who see themselves as producers and contributors never lack basic income.

Nov 5 2012:
"There is a reverse side of the medal. Automation removes low-skilled labor from the market and raises the education requirements for entry-level jobs, thus creating fewer opportunities for young people."

Thus a Basic Income to compensate for all the 'lost jobs', that in reality will not be missed. Do you really think people strive for low-skilled labor? Of course not. So, people can now spend their time on either reeducation (if they choose to) or simply begin innovating and exploring more creative sides of themselves, which in and of it self creates positive societal values and an increase in cultural diversity. They could also enjoy leisure, a seemingly foreign concept to most free market capitalists...

Nov 5 2012:
Re: "Basic Income would LIBERATE people from traditional notions of work. A Basic Income would _guarantee_ that people got their share of their cake."

Mats, when people are "liberated" from work, there is no cake to share. One needs to work to get the cake. Cakes don't fall from the sky or grow from a tree. Even if they did, one would need to pick them up and put in their mouth.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia: "Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable—a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want".[9] Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents."

Nov 5 2012:
"Mats, when people are "liberated" from work, there is no cake to share. One needs to work to get the cake. Cakes don't fall from the sky or grow from a tree. Even if they did, one would need to pick them up and put in their mouth."

Liberated from traditional NOTIONS of work, not work itself. People would still need and WANT to work, but with a Basic Income and more automation, people would at the same time redefine work as a concept and evolve it to something beyond the traditional occupations we have today, like low-skilled labor and even medium-skilled labor, which would be automated, so that people could focus on important and enjoyable stuff that enrich their lives. That has always been the premise for technology since the beginning. To make life easier and liberating.

Frankly, I don't want people to waste their talent and human ingenuity on useless jobs that could be done by a machine way more accurate and efficient than humans. That is highly unproductive in both a social and economical sense.

"Your idea is EXACTLY Marx's idea of communist society."

Keep my principals/philosophies separated from a Basic Income. They are not the same. Sure, many of my _principals_ may be similar to Marx's ideas, but that doesn't automatically mean that a Basic Income is affiliated with communism. If you still feel this way however, please pin point me where Marx talk about the concept of Basic Income, meaning an unconditional income.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Isn't this what you are talking about? Perhaps, Marx did not use the exact term "basic income", but this seems to be exactly what is meant by the phrase "to each according to his needs", isn't it?

Perhaps, Marx's ideas are prophetic. It is very possible that society will reach this happy time. I'm just not sure which will come first - communism in Marx's understanding or the kingdom of heaven. They seem like the same thing to me.

Nov 5 2012:
Re: "Did you really say at the _expense_ of the other 5% and justified it? Holy shit. If 95% of the population benefited from it it should be celebrated, not looked upon as a threat to the remaining 5%."

Mats, when 5% of the population is robbed and exterminated for the "benefit" of the 95%, there is nothing to celebrate. Perhaps, you have heard about Gulag and Auschwitz.

Nov 5 2012:
"Mats, when 5% of the population is robbed and exterminated for the "benefit" of the 95%, there is nothing to celebrate. Perhaps, you have heard about Gulag and Auschwitz."

They're not getting exterminated, in fact they'll get a guaranteed basic income as well! .They're also not being robbed, they're just asked to return stolen goods to the rightful owners, the people who actually produced all the goods instead of moving their trustfund money around, calling that an investment and claiming that was the single most important step in the production process (if resources weren't concentrated in the hands of a few to begin with there would be no need for rich investors either, it's just a scam where a few people rig the system to ensure demand for what they're selling).

It also has nothing to do with communism, communism sought 100% employment, not a basic income, it also did not allow for private entrepeneurship, while private entrepeneurship can exist in a basic income society. There is also no reason to assume a basic income society cannot be a democracy. Such strong comparisons to the Soviet Union show a lack of imagination, as if it is a law of nature that any system that is not capitalist must be communist.

Nov 5 2012:
To: John Smith Re: "They're also not being robbed, they're just asked to return stolen goods to the rightful owners, the people who actually produced all the goods"

I guess, "robbed" and "stolen" comes down to the definition of ownership. Let's say, you come up with an idea of a product, invest your resources into product development, take risks to borrow money to finance your business idea, hire workers to implement YOUR idea and YOUR plan, sell the product and make profit (or, which is equally or, even, more probable, fail and go bankrupt). Do you say that the hired workers who get their salary regardless of the success of the whole enterprise, are the rightful owners of the product? If they want to be, they should assume the same risks as the enterpreneur and, perhaps, forsake their guaranteed basic income to share the potential pay-offs of the success, and, inevitably, the losses associated with the failure.

Should people who take unjustified risks be guaranteed a "basic income"? That painfully reminds the recent bail-outs of the failed banks in the U.S.

Anyway, I don't say, it has to be like the Soviet Union, I don't say that it's impossible or that society will never reach such stage. I just say that it doesn't seem plausible in the current social, economical, and moral conditions. I may be missing something, but this idea doesn't seem to fit what I know about humans and economy.

Oct 18 2012:
If you read my note below, I explain my thought (I hope). We are entitled and we can get it any time - just need to claim it. If we don't nobody will "give" it to us. Same applies to human rights or freedom. We have no rights until we claim them. This is how it worked during American revolution, in times of MLK, and this is how it works with Miranda rights also. And this is why it does not work in Iraq.

Oct 26 2012:
@ Mitch Smith, thank your for giving me a little objectivity. That argument is endless with some people and if I am not aware I can fall prey to its effects and simultaneously forget its roots lost in a pointless surface level battle.

Oct 28 2012:
Well, let me say this. Hope it does not go too far off topic (and I'm pretty sure you will be able to keep up with this):
I have been directed to the work of neuro scientist Liz Pinal at University of Vermont.
She seems to concur with my observation of dyad pairs operating in the autobiographical self.
My observation hypothesyses "quadrads" - I talk about it often in these discussions.
So - for every person you meet, you create 2 autobiographical selves - one to represent "I" and one to represent "other". The other also does this - this results in 4 A-selves (a "quadrad"). These A-selves are initially copies of the core self - plus a delta(change set) that is an accumulated "causal" map that represents the agregation of "expectations" - one set for "self", one set for "others". The A-selves are then run through the general "world view" map which is a conglomerate of cuasal and physical maps in various states of completion. The completion component of any particular map fragment depends on the synaptic strength attachment to associated maps that have deeply long-term potentiation. This allows the perception of uncertainty. Now, if a deeply potentiated association happens to contain an erroneous assumption (e.g. "god" or "free market") then everything associated with it will inherit the same false certainty.
Each A-self in the quadrad begins with the default model and casts a "forecast" which is then measured for error in observation. The error is applied to a specific delta refining it to closer accuracy (Bayesian learning).
In the quadrad Me(Me,You) and You(You,Me) - lets call them a, b, c, d respectively - the Bayesian learning produces a convergence between ad and bc - if you drew it as corners of a square these convergences are diagonal.
With on-going experience between the me and you, these diagonals can potentially converge to exactly the same place. But the resulting convergence can be different for each diagonal pair (continued)

Oct 28 2012:
(Sorry about the double post - it takes a while, even simplified like this)

So the diagonal convergence can come to conclusion with a/d b/c in exactly the same place (symmetrical) or in different places (asymmetrical).

OK - now we look at another intra-personal dynamic: advantage.
Advantage is best described as a "field". It is the subset of the field of potential agency - that has causal maps which lead to convergence in the internal milieu (represented by the proto self). Conversely, the field of disadvantage is the subset that leads to divergence in the proto self.
Now lets look at the game dynamics win/lose and win/win (assuming that lose/lose is rejected by both).
These options have practical value depending on the frame set by the ambient environment.
In time of scarcity, win/lose is appropriate (competition).
In times of abundance, win/win is appropriate (cooperation).
However, the win/win dynamic has an emergent property - it increases abundance.
It follows that competition will result in an asymmetrical convergence of A-selves - cooperation will result in symmetric convergence.
Symetry/asymmetry define the absolute vector of left/right politics. Erroneous world view will exacerbate assymetry - even in the face of abundance.
When confronted with an asymmetric convergence, one must look at the state of abundance before attempting conflict. It is clear that inappropriate competition wil damage the abundance, and that inapropriate cooperation will damage the survival of the few.
Under this scenario, I see that the Namibian BIG program is cooperation supportive and, if appropriate, will lead to greater abundance in Namibia.
Ambient abundance will tend to disolve erroneous world views over time. However, if competitive "latch-up" occurs due to an erroneous world-view, then artificial scarcity will arise.
In times of abundance, there is no need for currency - the beans do not need to be counted.
I could go on, but you get the gist?

Nov 2 2012:
Mitch very interesting and although not completely cryptic, I'm still struggling to place my understandings into your hypothesis. I shall give it a crack: I believe what you are telling me is that when presented with interaction between the self and another if we suffer from some sort of unconscious false belief due to whatever reasoning, we superimpose and then infect our views with this deep rooted false idea. I suggest that when this is the case our "forecast" is also tainted. I also believe what your saying is that with your model we will converge on some truth in some aspect of our world view.

What i commonly see and have noted in myself is when starting on a false premise and a certain expectation of the other individual I tend to retreat to extremity. I noticed this with my father who when entering a debate with a family member would almost always retreat to reading right wing political works. However he only did this when he was at a loss for words. The argument was not so much about politics but more so about proving himself intelligent or correct in his assumptions. I think it needs to be noted that upon entertaining surface debates we open ourselves up to the effects of competition rather than the effects of mutual understanding and acceptance. I notice you at times cite Lakoff. He puts it very well that conservatives are not irrational they have a logic system that although is based on continuing cyclical abuse, makes perfect sense to them. If you notice on my profile page I put forth an idea that is old and important. The healthy and unhealthy mind reaches its conclusions the exact same way, through a logic system confined to the pleasure principle. It is more complicated than that but I think its a fair enough statement.
What I mean to say is that if proper debate is not formulated on a rational bedrock debating the issue has been lost from the start and all we see is a clash of primitime competitive forces wishing to assert dominance

Nov 2 2012:
Please update me where i fumbled your meaning or completely missed your point. You would be surprised how little neuroscience I have gone over in school. Most of my learning on the topic has come from spare time watching lectures and such...

But there is slightly more depth to the picture.
The key is the appropriate application of competition/cooperation.
One has to ask "where is the scarcity?" before undertaking competition.
In males, one would not be surprised to find that, in most cases, the only extant scarcity happens to be one particular female. It's not so primative when it happens to every male human during puberty. I observe a similar dynamic in females .. but I cannot speak for them.

The very idea that all critical thinking requires debate is also problematic. Debate is a form of competition. Critical thinking requires nothing more than observation. This is what I call "grounding".

We humans are not very good at comprehending non-linear phenomena.

The retreat to extremity is an attempt to assert self-image.

The cyclic abuse you identify is not so much direct physical or psychological violation - it manifests in the very framework of the common world-view. e.g. adversarial law and political systems, assumptions about "human nature" etc.

Anything that assumes a state of abundance/scarcity without direct observation is a falacious stance.

Nov 3 2012:
" It's not so primative when it happens to every male human during puberty"

This is true and now you have directed me down a differing rabbit hole. I must now attempt to define what I mean by "primitive". I guess I mean pre societal, mainly forces which humans have deemed to be destructive to civilization. Maybe its from reading to much Freud, but i sometimes place a bit of mysticism into the unconscious forces. After reading his books I find it difficult to not see the world the way he portrays it(in a very linear way). I notice a thread in much of your writing Mitch, you seem to be always looking in fractals and I cant say I blame you tis a beautiful lens to look through. Either way, you are right the male teenagers hormones rage and his frontal lobe has not reached full development, hence: a recipe for impulse control issues. But are these forces primitive? I guess they are only primitive in the sense that society has been trying to wrangle and control them for years. "Civilization began the first an angry person cast a word instead of a rock"- Freud

I think you are right about debate and I have noticed this may have been the root cause of the breakup of my philosophy group which I formed. Sides were being taken and it eventually lost its muster and faded(although it has just recently reassembled with new and old members). When we had discussion and sharing of ideas we made real progress, far more progress than in any school setting.

I think what you are getting at is that by integrating a world view or accepting a view consciously or unconsciously we can absorb its falsehoods and that the only real way to deviate from asymmetry in your model is to offer ideas that have been formed from your own experience? I think much training goes into alleviating what we already know. The idea you present is one i have been and maybe always will be fighting to keep, at least on some level.
-Brian

Nov 3 2012:
Interesting that the word "primative" indicates primate which infers "ape-like" when we actually are apes. I think the Latin root means "first" or "topmost" and the Pope is referred to as the primate.

Lots of historical ambiguity in that word. I think appropriately so.

We are an odd species, we apes. The extended gestation afforded by mammalian birth extended to 14 years presents an interesting notion of what happens first (primary, prior). Quick-maturity animals do not get such an extensive holiday from sexual competition. During that holiday, the human ape gets to develop a broader range of interactions - to discover the power of cooperation as well as competition. Then the great puberty synapse cull shreds anything that has not fully potentiated.

One wonders if the habitually competitive simply never left puberty.
Once mated and mature, the human ape should no longer need competition .. that the opportunity for inapropriate competition is fueled by artificial scarcities of non-essential commodities - to keep the big kids entertained and blissfully divided?

I think Freud was wrong - to me, it is evident that civillisation started with farming, and then stopped when humans started farming each other.

There's some bad old trauma lurking back 10,000 years .. possibly a harm that is still in the process of healing. But then, we see the same dynamic in baboons and chimps .. oddly not bonobos. The prevalence of inapropriate competitive behaviour seems to have a latch-up dynamic - as observed in Sapolski's baboon troop when all the alpha males got killed by tainted meat on a garbage-tip: how, in the absence of dominance/competition-driven social structure, the troop flourished way beyond the success rate of surrounding groups.

I'd like to get hold of the math that read Montaigne developed for his "dyad" model of interpersonal dynamics - then plug them into my quadrad model and see what species of convergence occur.

Nov 3 2012:
there is almost to much in your post I want to respond to but I first must start here: "There's some bad old trauma lurking back 10,000 years .. possibly a harm that is still in the process of healing." I have thought of this often and one night i was watching a special on the history of dogs and an idea hit me. It came in the form of a creation myth but expresses your exact idea. I remember it as clear as day because of the feeling associated with it. I rarely speak of this but i try to interpret it as a vision of a creation myth. The accepted theory of the evolution of dogs come from wolves being attracted to trash piles made by humans and were selected by temperament to eventually live with man. We bred them so as to work for us and now we see the vast array of breeds. Whats interesting about dogs is that they have taken on some of our diseases as well as psychological traits. We in essence gave them a superego by integrating them into the modern family unit and living amongst other members of our clan, but most importantly we brought them out of the hunter gatherer state(Jared Diamonds theory of Leisure Time equating to intelligence). Well somehow this all materialized and I thought wow is there a chance we are just like dogs. Who enslaved us and powered our frontal lobes? Who taught us agriculture and brought us out of the hunter gatherer state which inevitably lead to the growth of our species and the evolved cortex we now endure. I asked were we once enslaved like dogs were? Somehow it all seemed to click at the time and part of me knew we have been passing on this trauma since the birth of civilization.

Ive tried to put it into an intelligible theory but it does not really add up. So I view it as a myth with which i was allowed the pleasure to see. The myth expressed your exact idea and I think its probably true.

Yes - it's fascinating!
I normally don't entertain external agencies as part of the dynamic .. species pride I suppose ;)
But try this one - the meeting between homo sapiens and neanderthal?
The inference is a ring species divergence, but the evidence of interbreeding seems to imply that the divergence was not quite complete.
So who enslaved who?

This would have to be backed-up by some historical study, but: is there a correlation between the practice of slavery and the presence of neaderthal genes?

I have another conjecture that might have cogence. We view speciation as a divergent branching system, however, there is no corrollary with convergent symbiosis.

Convergence is clear in the very old evidence of evolution. My conjecture is that collaberative symbiots gradually converge. That there is a step-wise pattern with the symbiots getting closer until they eventually occupy the same skin. I point to the symbiotic relationships: man/dog, man/worm man/bacteria, man/virus.
With man/virus actually unifying in the DNA.

It is also tempting to give creedence to some ot the old catastrophe myths - these might also point to some ancient harm .. but, the slavery event seems a whole lot more powerful in the social dynamic.

Oct 22 2012:
Who are all those lazy bums here who say they would stop working the second there was a basic living income and why do they expect everyone else to be as lazy as them? My countries hands out 700 euros per month (which you can live off of in the tiniest apartment and without a car), plus free healthcare, to the long term unemployed (they do have to sollicit for jobs but there are easy ways to make sure you never get hired), still my country has about the same labor participation rate as less generous nations such as the United States. Even during the current crisis only 4% of non-elderly adults in my country (and that includes disabled people) are on this welfare system. Also, most people in the developed world could cover their necessities by working part-time, or working full-time and then retiring early, yet few people choose one of those options.

The truth is most people don't work just to cover their necessities, most don't steal for that goal either, but the ones that do cause excessive damage. No country needs a 100% labor force participation rate to function, most developed countries are doing just fine at around 60% and even that figure includes a lot of police/prison personnel and other civil servants that would be redundant when the basic living income drastically lowers crime and simplifies social programs. In addition, all kinds of entertainers, artists and athletes would stop being paid employees without ceasing to do what they were doing before. Not to mention all the laborers who can be replaced by robots and the financial thugs who can be eliminated through a more sensible economic system and all the nannies who look after the children of these people, and so on...

The worst thing that could happen is that several percent of the labor force stopped working, that would by no means spell the end of civilization, in fact it's likely we'd barely miss them at all.

Oct 22 2012:
I would make it a human right in my community, to divide any wealth surplus as basic incomes, as a means to increase profit and optimize the market economy, I would think it was a superior socio-economic system for any society, even ignoring social/ethical reasons and only counting political and economic reasons, I would implement unconditional basic incomes as a superior algorithm to run the operative system of my society, and our socio-technological evolution would be faster then that of neighbor-communites stuck in unequal social operative systems. Evolutionary speaking, our genes/memes/temes would survive.

Oct 21 2012:
Research from Namibia revealed that the introduction of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) led to an increase in economic activity. The proportion of those who could get a job or become self-employed has increased from 44 to 55%, and there was an increase of non-citizen BIG per capita from N $ 118 to N $ 152, which indicates a nascent economic growth cycle. BIG enabled recipients to increase their work for income, profit or for their family and as self-employed. BIG enabled recipients to increase their productive income, particularly through starting their own small business, including the manufacture of bricks, baking of bread and custom operations. BIG also contributed to the creation of a local market by increasing households' purchasing power. This finding contradicts critics' claims that the BIG will lead to laziness and dependency. http://www.bignam.org

Namibia had amazing results in a number of other things as well, namely poverty reduction, which is a pivotal point in and of itself, and a reduction in crime rate by 40%.

But Namibia I would guess may be on a sugar high from the government spending. Over the long haul or even not so long haul. If you look at the link below it illustrates that they improved in 09-11 but have taken a dive this year. They have high levels of corruption, high taxes, and low regard for private property. I would guess their one saving grace is that they are rich in natural resources. Otherwise they have not accommodated the 6 killer apps required to have a healthy economy.

In actuality, I did include, when I started this conversation, a relevant TED talk in the description that is highly relevant (and which I partly use to support my claims) on why a Basic Income should become a human right. I highly recommend watching it if you haven't already. Wilkinson's brilliant talk on how equal societies usually have a lower rate of poverty, crime and mental disorders and an increase in overall happiness and the willing to share and collaborate, is based on deep and unbiased research and he also wrote a book on this issue, which I also highly recommend; "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better".

Oct 23 2012:
"But Namibia I would guess may be on a sugar high from the government spending."

Since the BIG was introduced in 2002 Namibia has not fallen behind South Africa in GDP growth. This means that the BIG had no adverse effect on GDP growth while it definitely raised the living standard for many people.

"They have high levels of corruption, high taxes, and low regard for private property."

They had a GDP/capita of less than $1500 in 2002 (four times lower than South Africa's GDP at the time), why do you expect them to become Switzerland in 10 years? South Africa has all of the same problems, probably even worse when it comes to crime. Corruption wise the two countries rank the same, even though South Africa is richer.

"Also this a very small country of 2 million in which money that is acquired only has to be divided by 2 million. There are 3 million people in the county I live in."

This matters how exactly?

I advise you to look into labor force participation rate statistics for countries with extensive welfare programs (that you can actually live off, sort of) like Sweden and the Netherlands. Believe it or not but there are many, many people in the world who work even though they don't really have to and get a sh*tty pay for sh*tty or hard work, there are also people who are multi-millionaires but still show up at some office every morning. Most people are not as lazy as you think, or at least they have some other motivations besides paying for necessities (sense of pride, wanting to make more than some basic minimum, wanting to contribute, the social interactions of the work place, wanting to live up to expectations of loved ones, wanting to build a bigger business than the competition, the fun/satisfaction of the job itself, wanting to impress a love interest, etc...)

Oct 28 2012:
Yes, I'm familiar with that talk and have never seen a more pretentious, arrogant and self-indulgent talk in my life. But personal opinions aside. His statistics of what he call the great divergence are highly irrelevant in terms of equality and quality of life, because the Western world had robber barons in the late 1800's and throughout 1900's, who possessed most of the money thus owning most of the land (very much like they do today). So, true prosperity for most people in the Western world was never the case and has never been the case in a free market.

I would, however, agree that the Western world's scientific revolution and the advent of modern medicine did play a part on positive technological advances in terms of health and automation, but I would at the same time argue that the progress of technological advances would have increased exponentially if property rights were replaced with public ownership or at least much more regulated to benefit the people and that collaboration was cherished instead of competition.

Furthermore, the work ethics was never incentivized, but forced. People had to work for the necessities of life, because they had no land to grow their own food. The robber barons took it all. That's what happens in a free market and that is why billions of people around the world live in poverty.

Oct 28 2012:
"how do you explain the disparity between south america and north america if not for the private land?"

Sure, people in North America was given land in return for their effort, but that in and of itself doesn't automatically lead to prosperity. Furthermore, GDP doesn't show the prosperity level of most people within a nation, it only displays the value of goods and services being made within that nation. So, if you have a robber baron elite class that is owning and controlling the production and distribution of all goods and services produced within a nation and which is consuming most of the stuff because they have the purchasing power to do so, it doesn't matter how many working class people get to own land as long as the elite own the production and distribution facilities, ergo it is false reflection of the prosperity level for most people in the Western world.

"I don't of any one in the U.S. who was forced to work. Can you site some proof of this?"

Well, people are indirectly forced to work, if they don't have any land to begin with, in order to survive. Of course, if you don't want to submit to labor, you could always "choose" to lay down and die. But is that really a choice? No, that's called conditioning as a result of the free market.

Oct 28 2012:
"Do you have any proof of this nonsense? Your conjecture, although is proof to you, is not proof to anyone who understands anything about economics."

What proof are you seeking?

"Of all the significant discoveries in the last 100 years or so how many of them came from the evil free market? How many came from the noble socialist governments?"

I do agree that the Western world's scientific revolution and the advent of modern medicine did play a part on positive technological advances in terms of health and automation, but I don't believe that technological innovations is based on what economic model you have in a region, but rather the values of that population. In other words, the Eastern world could have just as easily discovered and done the same things the Western world did, if not more, but was held back by superstition and doctrines. The scientific revolution in the West, partly, moved the Western world out of this superstition and opened up for the advent of technological innovations. But it wasn't the free market that did that, it was the scientists and researchers who discovered and invented and ultimately the values of the population that allowed for this to continue.

Oct 29 2012:
You tell me. I've already said what I believe to be the factors in terms of the technological innovations in the Western world contra the Eastern world during the 18-1900's. Mostly coincidence.

Oct 29 2012:
What do you get In the USSR if you come with a revolutionary scientific advancement?
An extra ration of Vodka?

In the free market you get what people will exchange with you for your product. The google guys invented a better search engine they were almost instant billionaires, same with Bill Gates, same with Stephen Jobs, same with the guy who figured out how to turn E coli into insulin, same with guy who came up with pay pal, But you know where the most millionaires are made? in real estate. All of the above is private property and that is the difference.

Oct 29 2012:
Look. I know your position on this issue is that people must work for money, but your argument is just not valid. Look at the owners of properties, or owners of shares in companies. Do these owners work to get their money? No. And the country’s laws will make sure that renters pay rent. Thus, it is not true that everyone lives off his or her work. The very rich can live off their ownership rights. Citizens are being short-changed. They are owners of their country. Yet they get nothing from their ownership (except Alaskans). Just like the very rich who own properties and shares, citizens too own many properties and other forms of wealth in their country. Just like the very rich who receive money from being owners, citizens too should receive money from being owners of their country.

Oct 29 2012:
The question is not whether the richest people performed work in their lives at some point, the question is whether their work was sufficient to warrant the rewards these people received. Pat makes a rookie mistake when he views the amoral market as the hand of god that rewards the productive and punishes the lazy. You can make more money at a 50 hour/week job as a tobacco exec than at a 60 hour/week job feeding orphans. Of course that tobacco exec still gets paid peanuts compared to someone who deals in underage sex slaves or AK-47s. The free market is effective but amoral, that's something even the staunchest free market fundamentalist should be able to admit, otherwise they're just following a religion, not rational ideas.

Oct 29 2012:
Mats, have you refined your understanding through this thread?
Or are you trying to find a way to help the black boys escape from someone's plantation?
Sometimes wire cutters work better than words.

How many of the 1% inherited their money, made their fortunes with a sizable trust fund, or made their money manipulating the financial system, without adding anything to the general welfare of the state?

New York University economist Edward Wolff has done the best work I’ve seen on the contribution of inheritance to wealth inequality, and his latest paper, coauthored with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Maury Gittleman, is chock full of relevant data on the matter. In 2007, the last year Wolff and Gittleman look at, wealth transfers (mainly inheritances, but also including gifts) made up, on average, 14.7 percent of the total wealth of the 1 percent (more specifically, the top 1 percent in terms of wealth). Interestingly, inheritance’s share has declined over time. In 1992, 27 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent came from wealth transfers.

Oct 18 2012:
@ Krisztian pinter " profit can not be earned in a free market unless you provide something people need. the profit motive alone is enough to be useful for society. again, provided that we have a free market."

This is true, what is also true is that this thing you provide that people need can be created. In fact from my experience a large amount of our industry is based not based on things people need but things that the companies who market them want you to need. Do you need nike shoes? Of course you don't, the whole idea behind a capitalist society is to create a culture that rewards those who are wealthy, with reverence and praise, even if the nike shoes they happen to own were made by a wage slave or child labor. In america we have a culture that praises those who wear name brand clothing, drive high priced cars, and hold positions of power over others. From where I stand its all part of a large scheme to get people to do work they hate so they can buy stuff that is unnecessary and unimportant. This is the nature of capitalism, it reduces mans value to that of a dog. The dog who needs to be trained with treats to do the right thing. This of course is the reigning sentiment among those in power in the United States and has been for years. Why is it do you think corporations spend massive sums of money on marketing and pr campaigns with psychologists on staff? The goal is to coerce people into believing that there bank account and possessions is a reflection of their self worth.

The profit motive alone is also why you see bubbles as well as the near systemic collapse in 2008. Now, you are right that this is all dependent on a free market, a market that allows companies to fail so as to bring balance to absurd risk taking. Problem is we don't have that in the United States, the saying goes "too big to fail, too big to jail".

Oct 19 2012:
They should of had those triple A rating companies taken the fall with Lehmans, stat models don't work unless you got guys running around in the field at the bottom of the rung giving data flow back and people who are not biased otherwise we end up with 2008. "The Hope it evens out" people.

Oct 19 2012:
I won't interfere with Krisztian hitting the cookie that you have thrown over the middle of the plate out of the park.

But I will add that young Edward Bernays learned well from uncle Sigmund about how to manipulate which was used by none other than the highly dubious character name Woodrow Wilson, of whom the communist countries said they learned everything they know about propaganda from Wilson. Apparently this manipulation thing was not exclusive to the big evil corporations, of which very few of them still exist. But the gifts that Wilson left us are the gift that keeps on giving.

Oct 19 2012:
Pat, great reference, Edward Bernays essentially coined the idea that in a democracy opinion must be controlled so as to serve the masters. The idea is that in a totalitarian state you can use brute violence, in a democracy you must use propaganda, after all the people might want to take part in the shaping of their society and we can't have that. As far as manipulating Freud's model so as to influence the masses, this is just a product of advancing civilization and very helpful tools can become incredibly destructive in the wrong hands. Ever read Civilization and its Discontents by Freud? Its an awesome quick read and I think you would probably enjoy it. He offers a very legitimate critique of communism, he also thought America was a disaster, from my perspective he underestimated will of the powerful to subvert democratic interests and leave the illusion intact. Freud also believed the masses to stupid to know whats best for them. Either way this model and idea that Bernays founded is still used today and probably more than ever. This model has successfully lead the people into countless undeclared wars, destroyed the constitution, and created profits beyond my wildest imagination for the few.

Im sure the communists gained much from Bernays and Wilson after all Stalin was praised by Truman and others, they did not think the country would become outwardly aggressive or attempt to spread their style of government. Like I said in my previous post Communism was sold to their people based on the morality of taking care of everyone in a society, but used as tool for domination and control. Common theme in history; find out what the people want and use this to keep them subdued, apathetic, powerless. So long as guys like Bernays and his future minions exist the demand from the people will be to have rulers.

Oct 19 2012:
The point is that government uses this stuff as much or more than corporations. And most of the companies that do this are no longer around, which has not be true for governments but that is about to change.

Can you give some specific links regarding fast Eddy staring wars. Since Wilson and FDR were related I can see the connection on how both of them subjugated the constitution to their ignorant egos.

I will add that those big evil corporations are what gives you the standard of living, a better standard of living than kings of yesteryear, that you enjoy now so don't bite too hard on the hand that has raised your standard living. And NO it is not the government that has done this.